Monday, January 23, 2012

Or does it?

After nineteen years on this planet, throughout which he endured shocking levels of ostracism, abuse and rejection, this week gay filmmaker Eric James Borges decided shit actually wasn't getting better and took his own life. In the It Gets Better video he shot one month ago, Borges describes his lifelong odyssey through various rings of hell-on-earth: he'd been teased since kindergarten, his parents tried to perform an exorcism on him when they learned he was gay, he was bullied throughout high school. (Source)

The "It Gets Better" crowd continues to act counterproductively, as they have increased the visibility of the gay agenda's campaign for super rights. When has anyone proclaimed "Heterosexual History Month"? If we are to celebrate historical achievements by remarkable people, why bring up their sexual orientation at all? What difference does one's sexual orientation make in a great invention or discovery? Who among us speaks in the following way: "Albert Einstein, a great mind and influential scientist, who was also heterosexual, is the originator of the theory of relativity"?

If people genuinely wish to discourage gay teen suicide, they very much need to rethink their basic assumptions concerning the subject and look at whether gay suicide has increased or decreased with its increased societal visibility and if there is even any direct relationship between the amount of bullying an individual receives and the likelihood that he will kill himself. While I'm sure it must feel very satisfying to blame everything on "homophobes" and insufficient societal admiration, the weight of observable evidence doesn't presently tend to indicate that they have much, if anything, to do with the actual problem.
In the meantime, whoever is behind the "It Gets Better" program should do a much more careful job vetting its spokesmen, since at the moment, it looks an awful lot like an inadvertant homosexual suicide campaign straight out of the movie Heathers. All they need is a video featuring a cheesy 80s band singing "Gay teen suicide, don't do it!" Recruiting unstable young men to lie to teenage boys simply isn't a long-term prescription for success.

38 comments:

If you want to have a serious discussion about this, let me know and I'll be happy to explain it to you. But a serious discussion, where you engage with the points I make rather than just keep repeating the same thing over and over. Happy to respond.

The "obvious answer" (which I accept is not that obvious to people who haven't been exposed to it previously) is that since straight white men have had a de facto near-monopoly on the institutions that govern society, the western practice of history has usually (if not always) taken the perspective of straight white men. While straight white men are not unimportant, this means that other groups in the historical narrative are frequently overlooked (and sometimes actively marginalised). The idea of having "history months" are to provide a focal point for counter-balancing the narrative to ensure that those other groups get increased visibility.

Such events are an obvious extension of historiographical developments in the twentieth century - notably the longue duree and people's history schools - but, equally obviously, "history months" are not historical events, but political events - and you might disagree with the specific politics involved. However attempts such as this to represent the many rather than the few seem to me to be a truly democratic innovation - the absence of a many-voiced narrative is the hallmark not just of bad history, but authoritarian states.

Which groups qualify for having their own "history month" is definitely something which is worth discussing, but your tone is already deteriorating into the usual snidery. Let's keep going, but I hope you'll be able to restrain yourself.

Would I support them? No. These are not groups for which the question of marginalisation in the traditional practice of history has much meaning. If such groups were in fact interested in such a thing, then there would be a point in discussing it. As I said, these are political questions.

merkur said it. In a just world, there would be no need for Black or White or Christian or Short History Month. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world: some groups of people are oppressed, and one way of bringing that oppression into the light and dispelling stereotypes is education, of which the various "history months" are one type. If you don't like Gay or Black History Month, fine; don't participate in it.

I see that my hope that you would restrain yourself from your usual snidery was forlorn.

Any outsider could say that about any suffering minority of which he is not a part.

Indeed they could, but my point was that the groups you list have not suffered on the basis of being historically been politically disenfranchised. Polo players have never been institutionalised on the basis that polo playing is a sign of mental illness; vegans have never been denied the vote on the basis that they weren't responsible enough; UFO abduction theorists have never been enslaved as a group in massive numbers. As I said, then, these are not groups for which the question of marginalisation in the traditional practice of history has much meaning. This is borne out by the evidence that the groups that you list have ever put forward any such claims of suffering or marginalisation; if they did, then there would be a discussion to have.

I notice that you haven't actually made a counter-argument to any of my points yet. I am of course happy to have this discussion as long as you engage with the points that I make. Go on, give it a try - you might like it!

I see that my hope that you would restrain yourself from your usual snidery was forlorn.

And I see that you've missed the point again.

my point was that the groups you list have not suffered on the basis of being historically been politically disenfranchised.

Outsider bigot. You don't know what they've faced, the difficulties they've had to overcome.

vegans have never been denied the vote on the basis that they weren't responsible enough

1) Homosexuals have been denied the right to vote?2) You take someone who is so perverted as to want to go the exact opposite direction from God's design, and you think it's not OK if they have a say in society? I don't have a huge problem with that.

This is borne out by the evidence that the groups that you list have ever put forward any such claims of suffering or marginalisation; if they did, then there would be a discussion to have.

Their claims go unreported by the mainstream media. Your callous disregard for their huge contributions to history is shocking. Did you know that several kings of England have played polo? Those men changed history in many important ways, you know.

I'd rather not participate in a child's fantasy of what a philosophical argument looks like. I'd rather you actually answered the points that I raised in my initial comment, but that looks unlikely at this stage.

If it is too difficult for you, perhaps I can ask you an easier question. Based on what you've written, is your objection to "Black History Month" that it would be impractical to have a "History Month" for every special interest group? Or do you have another objection?

You asked the rhetorical question: "When has anyone proclaimed "Heterosexual History Month"?" In my comment, I attempted to explain why nobody has ever proclaimed heterosexual history month. Your sudden decision that something you wrote in your own post is irrelevant to what you wanted to discuss in that post strikes me as not a little bizarre.

Your post was an incoherent mishmash of dog-whistle memes that you've been repeating ad nauseum since you started blogging. I'm simply trying to bring some clarity to the discussion by establishing exactly what it is you object to about e.g. Black History Month. I made clear what my intention was in my first comment, and I assumed the fact that you kept posting meant that you did, in fact, want to have a serious discussion about an issue which clearly means something to you, but which you can't articulate your opinion on. If I was mistaken, I apologise.

As for BHM, I prefer to discuss things I do actually have issue with. I like how you're diverting attention from your bigoted attitude toward Polo Player History Month, but I'm going to need to ask you to interact with that point, please, instead of introducing another argument.

"I like how you're diverting attention from your bigoted attitude toward Polo Player History Month"

I don't have a bigoted attitude toward Polo Player History Month. What I said was: "This is borne out by the evidence that the groups that you list have ever put forward any such claims of suffering or marginalisation; if they did, then there would be a discussion to have." This indicates that if any of those groups put forward claims of suffering and marginalisation, I would be open to discussing the merits of any claims for a X history month.

You don't care about my answer, of course. You just want to avoid engaging with the points that I actually made, as you usually do. Do you agree that straight white men have a de facto near-monopoly? Do you agree that other groups have been marginalised as a result? What's your opinion on "history months" as means of political activism?

I fear these things will remain a mystery for the ages. Having a serious discussion is too much like hard work, I suppose.

I asked you before, but you did not answer: is your objection to "X History Month" that a) it would be impractical to have a "History Month" for every special interest group, or b) having you disagree with "X History Month" where X is not "ontological", or c) something else?

Try writing what you think, rather than trying to be clever. It will help you to be understood more easily.

p.s. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with your attempt at a reductio (I'm not even convinced it is a reductio, but we can let that slide).

For example, pretend that as many individuals as you can think of are committing crimes - hundreds of thousands of them! Is that an argument against having a criminal justice system? If not, why do you think an identical formulation is an argument against having Black History Month?

Crimes are not equivalent to recognition of ___ History Month, to the gov't actively celebrating a specific activity.

The one is a threat to social order and sin against other people made in the image of God. The other is just a way people choose to pass time.

Also, your false analogy doesn't answer the question I posed you.

As for BHM, I prefer to discuss things I do actually have issue with. I like how you're diverting attention from your bigoted attitude toward Polo Player History Month, but I'm going to need to ask you to interact with that point, please, instead of introducing another argument.

“Crimes are not equivalent to recognition of ___ History Month, to the gov't actively celebrating a specific activity.”

I'm not saying that they are, nor does my argument rest on any such equivalence. I'm saying that the form of your reductio is precisely equivalent to the form of my reductio. If you think my reductio has no force, then why do you think your reductio has any force?

This goes straight to my question to you: is your objection to “X History Month” that is impractical? Because that's the only implication of your reductio: it doesn't provide any actual principle on which one might object to that situation, only a logistical problem.

“As for BHM, I prefer to discuss things I do actually have issue with. I like how you're diverting attention from your bigoted attitude toward Polo Player History Month, but I'm going to need to ask you to interact with that point, please, instead of introducing another argument.”

I already “interacted” with that point – and can I just say for the record how much I love the way you mangle the English language when you're trying to appear clever? I “interacted” with that point when I said:

“I don't have a bigoted attitude toward Polo Player History Month. What I said was: "This is borne out by the evidence that the groups that you list have ever put forward any such claims of suffering or marginalisation; if they did, then there would be a discussion to have." This indicates that if any of those groups put forward claims of suffering and marginalisation, I would be open to discussing the merits of any claims for a X history month.”

I know you're fucking up several different debates on several different blogs at any given time, but you might at least try to read through people's answers before you press "post"!

It's one of them. And the basis for choosing which X HM you select and which you don't is also telling, which is why I'd really like you to answer the question.As well as the other questions you've so far avoided.

"It's one of them. And the basis for choosing which X HM you select and which you don't is also telling"

It seems that one would decide the relative merits of any given political advocacy for "X History Month" on the basis of three factors: the size of the group involved; the political visibility of that group; and the level of perceived and/or actual suffering of that group.

"which is why I'd really like you to answer the question."

You didn't ask a question. Your attempted reductio finished with the sage words: "Now, proceed." I have proceeded.

"As well as the other questions you've so far avoided."

I'm struggling here, because as far as I can tell I've answered all the questions you've asked.

The one is a threat to social order and sin against other people made in the image of God. The other is just a way people choose to pass time.

So you want Christianity (or other anti-gay religion of your choice) to be established as the state religion, rho? Otherwise, "sin" has no legal standing. And can you show us some evidence that homosexuality is a "threat to social order"?

Ah, rho, now I see, from your post on Triablogue, the "threat to social order" posed by gays: wearing briefs and playing with sex toys in public. Chacun à son goût, but that kind of behavior ranks fairly low on my list of threats to social order.